Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion/archive50

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Votes for deletion.

I know katie hate this, but with her name in the template won't make it useful for us to use. Please respect communism to remove name or move to her userpageGSPbeetlecomplainsVandalisms 09:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture seems to be taken from the article, but if you do a little digging within the revisions, the caption in Orange Jews was scribbled in months after the Holocaust Tycoon revision - Orange Jews recieving it on October 6, 2006, and Holocaust Tycoon recieving it on April 28th or so of 2006. --~

Voting Closed. Due to Prettiestpretty's Rewrite there will be no further voting on this article.

Keep

Keep I know its easier to erase than correct, but this article is a natural for Uncyclopedia and I think that rewrite tag should have been used in this instance. Give me a few days and I'll get it a shot. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I will point out that it has been made uglier and less coherant (slowly), those edits are not really "vandalisim" and should be considered. Also, it was bad before (circa Tompkins revert, for example) --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm being nice today. I've added the VFD template to the article. George the 6, please remember to add {{VFD}} to the top of the page to be voted upon in the future. Successive infractions might hurt more. —Hinoatalk.kun 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is about a famous web site and forum, and many in the community here contributed to the article. If we are making fun of Facebook, MySpace, Livejournal, etc we should make fun of IWETHEY as well. Their members tried to blank and vandalize pages here, which I think is a good reason to have an article on them. If anything, someone do a rewrite. Their members kept placing templates on the article to discredit it, and many kept adding templates in efforts to try to make it funnier. It was up for a vote for deletion before, but it was voted into being kept. Ever since, a random IP will try to blank and vandalize the page and place more templates on it. It is not Vanity, BTW, IWETHEY is famous for their war against SCO, being Linux pundits, and invading the Infoworld Forums and stealing Infoworld for their IW part of their name. --Lt.SirOrion Blastar (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

According to their mailing list, their web server is down due to a RAID problem. Is the reason this was put up for deletion because their web link does not work any more? This article has been around since the early Uncyclopedia days and survived forest fire after forest fire. Besides the article has been vandalized a lot, and instead of being restored, it gets put up for VFD? Is that the new VFD policy, an article gets vandalized and instead of fixing it, we vote to delete it now? Besides they are a part of our folklore on how Uncyclopedia is the worst. --Lt.SirOrion Blastar (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am attempting to fix up the article. Remove the extra templates that vandals put on it and remove some broken links and other damage done to the article. Like I said just because it was vandalized is no good reason to move it to VFD if it can be fixed and restored to the funnier version. Even if it is Sophomoric, so is UnBooks:See Dick and we kept that article because it had potential. I even worked making suggestions to See Dick to make it funnier. The least you could do is make suggestions to IWETHEY to make this article funnier and rewrite parts of it. I am one of the many who contributed to this article and I don't have the time to keep cleaning it up because the vandals keep sabotaging it faster than I can fix it. It is a sad day when articles get deleted because they were sabotaged and vandalized and nobody wanted to help out and fix it and would rather delete it than fix it. --Lt.SirOrion Blastar (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll change my vote if prettiestpretty's rewrite is applied. The original article was worthless, the new one is a major improvement. --»His Majesty King George VI(the boxes) 00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Now would do, content wise. Your version is infinitely better. I don't know if PL entries aren't allowed to be put in articles before judging. --»His Majesty King George VI(the boxes) 10:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Oh, my love, my darling, I've hungered for your touch a long, lonely time. Time goes by so slowly and time can do so much; are you still mine? I need your love, I need your love, God speed your love to me. Lonely rivers flow to the sea, to the sea, to the open arms of the sea; lonely rivers sigh, 'Wait for me, wait for me; I'll be coming home, wait for me!' Are you still mine? I need your love, I need your love, God speed your love to me... The Humbled Master 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

keep. I once did her (yes I am that old). I remember her fondly. -- di Mario 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"There's no actual article!" Uh, that's the idea. Cantor's set removes the open interval of a line until there's no line left but still an infinite number of points, the Cantobury tales have no text but still the regular amount of plotNullius in Verba 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is fucking hilarious. How dare you nuke quality material! You're just asking for the Bucket of Piss award. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 02:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I don't want to get Black Jesus mad at me. You have never seen him when he gets angry. Deleting his template will get him very angry at you. This is racism, because he is Black and not White. You all want to keep the White Jesus template, but delete the Black Jesus template? Black Jesus is just representing on Uncyclopedia is all. --Lt.SirOrion Blastar (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I don't use it, I don't like it; indeed, I'm no fan of any of the no thought templates. But it has its place. Feel free to cut it when its posted on pages for which it isn't appropriate, but don't punish it for being misused.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I actually like this one, but I agree that it's being overused. Maybe cut back on it, but don't get rid of it altogether? -- 08:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Deleting this template would force us to copy and paste it onto religion-related articles, and then the machines will have won. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 08:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I like it, but I may be a little biased. It's my little baby. ^>^ I agree that it may have been a bit overused. But that is merely an indication of its popularity and should not be considered a factor against it. Remove it from superfluous pages, but don’t kill it entirely. Big Brother 1984 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

keep if only for the picture. The text is racist and bad, however...--Super90 10:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete

This is, in my opinion, on of the least funny templates ever made. And yet, I see it plastered on horrible page after horrible page. Usually at the top, this template just adds length at articles to try and keep their subpar humor around longer, and probably is an attempt to add humor. Anyway, its ugly and not funny, and thems are the reasons. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this template is about to die, I'll start removing it from articles. --AAA!(AAAA) 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put a topic on the Village Dump (Removal of irrelevant Jesus, Satan, and Black Jesus templates) which proposes listing irrelevant uses of this template. Obviously if we dislike overuse of this we must identify where it is used inappropriately and remove it. Please contribute. Thank you, and remember -- Black Jesus approves of this effort.----OEJ 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is another reason for me to dislike it. Anyway, here's a brainstorm: if we absolutely have to keep these templates, perhaps we could have Jesus and Black Jesus alternate through use of <choose> tags? Just a thought. —The Right HonourableMajorSir HinoaKUNUmPUotMBurMDANSCM(talk)04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy Keep Zombiebaron does have a point, but we need these 2 templates for certain religious articles where they work. Plus, this is the first image of Jesus where he isn't solemn or nailed to something.--Witt,ofUNionEntertain me* 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

k33p - Hey, Sir Captain ZombieBaron: Cut these Jesus some slack. Don't you know how busy His schedule is? You should be honored to know that He can take time out of his busy workday to personally review an article. And that goes double for Satan. --El Destructeso 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep it part of Uncyclopedia's charm is that it isn't as proper as that other pedia thing on the Internet. Keeping this isn't going to bring down a rain of faire and brimstone. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Keep, I don't use it, I don't like it; indeed, I'm no fan of any of the no thought templates. But it has its place. Feel free to cut it when its posted on pages for which it isn't appropriate, but don't punish it for being misused.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep-Just an overused template, like {{USERNAME}}, if used properly it can be funny.--Scott 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This shouldn't have been even put in this category to begin with, I think its a pretty funny template --Uncle J 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete

As with its counterpart (The Satan Approved Template) this template does nothing for an article. It is just a way that people make their articles look longer so they can evade NRV/ICU, and later VFD. They add clutter and nothing more, making articles no funnier. An example of this is Grammar Fascists, an article I just found through the list of articles with this template, and am about to VFD. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not real big on the Jesus/Black Jesus/Satan/etc... templates. They make an article seem puffed-up, right from the start.-fish 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Dear El Destructoso, I don't think that you acctually understand that point I am making. JESUS IS NOT REVIEWING ARTICLES. That is silly. Jesus is in Brazil sculpting beautiful ladies that then come to life. He doesn't even have the internet. The people who do this are borde line vandals in my books, and in noway holy. It just makes articles more ugly, and requires nothing to be placed. Heck, VFD could be Jesus Approved. Oh, and that goes for all these templates. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put a topic on the Village Dump (Removal of irrelevant Jesus, Satan, and Black Jesus templates) which proposes listing irrelevant uses of this template. Obviously if we dislike overuse of this we must identify where it is used inappropriately and remove it. Please contribute. Thank you, and remember -- Jesus approves of this effort.----OEJ 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

k33p - Unlike some people, I deeply respect Satan's decisions. If the Dark Prince decides to make a template about how He is all knowing, then let him do it. --El Destructeso 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep ZB has a point, but we need these templates for certain religious articles where they work. And you gotta admit that the image is absolutely fitting for the Betrayer of God.--Witt,ofUNionEntertain me* 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Funny. It is used for Satan-related articles. --AAA!(AAAA) 02:18, 11

Keep it just like in the Jesus approved template: part of Uncyclopedia's charm is that it isn't as proper as that other "pedia" thing on the Internet. Keeping this isn't going to bring down a rain of lightning bolts and earthquakes and floods. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)(UTC)January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I don't use it, I don't like it; indeed, I'm no fan of any of the no thought templates. But it has its place. Feel free to cut it when its posted on pages for which it isn't appropriate, but don't punish it for being misused.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep It might be overused but I think the template is actually pretty funny --Uncle J 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete

In all honesty this should have been deleted long ago. People just randomly sprinkle this, and the templates in its family, across articles with no rytheme or reason. It is not funny. It doesn't make articles funny. It is ugly. And it makes articles ugly/uglier. So yah, all it does it subtract from articles as a whole. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen, both the Jesus and Satan approved templates are absolutely suitable for some religious articles, however, zombiebaron is right that people who put these 2 templates in articles where they don't fit (Why would Jesus approve an article about chainsaws over something like Satanism?). Black Jesus and other spinoffs I don't like, these 3 however, I like and I believe they fit.--Witt,ofUNionEntertain me* 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other spinoffs? Oh god! Send me a link! Oh, and the few articles that it does fit on, it can be subst'd onto if the template gets deleted. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 03:01, 11 January

2007 (UTC)

Well, black Jesus and Robert Mugabe are the only others that come too mind, I dislike BJC and his izzle of a tamplate, but Mugabe seems to be funny enough in his own right to approve governmental issues, especially in Africa and Zimbabwe.--Witt,ofUNionEntertain me* 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon seaching for Robert Mugabe all I found was one image of him which is on two pages. Please link me to the template you are talking about. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put a topic on the Village Dump (Removal of irrelevant Jesus, Satan, and Black Jesus templates) which proposes listing irrelevant uses of this template. Obviously if we dislike overuse of this we must identify where it is used inappropriately and remove it. Please contribute. Thank you, and remember -- Satan approves of this effort.----OEJ 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should not have been added to VFD because it was blatant vanity. I have removed this from VFD and nuked it. Further nominations of new articles are considered abuses of VFD and will result in a 1-day ban and a further 1-week block from editing VFD. Please read the deletion policies for more information. Voting closed. —RT. HON.HINOA, KNIGHT COMMANDER OF THE ORDER(BEG FOR MERCY)14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly irrelevant to the article, but see Joel Veitch's exceptionally filthy flash-song about anal seepage here. Um, I should add that this has VERY DIRTY LANGUAGE. Click appropriately, and remember to think of the chinchillas. ----OEJ 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Huff Has been in Category:Rewrite for a very long time, and was never improved during that time. It's just a collection of lists, and I hate articles that consists of nothing but lists. --GeneralInsineratehymn 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

d3l373 - I agree with Insineratehymn. This just isn't very funny. I can see why the author would think that it is, but it's really not. It's repetitive and annoying. --El Destructeso 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

About as funny as when you go to kiss grandmother goodbye and she slips you the tongue. OK, so its not as funny as that, but in the right hands it can be fondled into something that could be acceptible to society one day. Keep it. DameGUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

k33p - Not tonight, Dad, I have a headache. --El Destructeso 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No way you can't delete that? I thought it was funny...--Mountaineer 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You should at least fix it or something, it's good...--Gyroballer 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you delete this one you will need to delete the one for all the schools and universities on here.-- 13:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Right from the time I first saw this (as it was created) I thought it should be deleted due to its vanity element. Heck, I even VNRV'd it. But someone removed the VNRV, and now I have to VVFD it. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 15:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all high school or any other school vanity articles. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Wikipedia page. So lock and loadUser:Kjhf/sig 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked the ending of it, where the author is apparently so drunk that he passes out typing and the end of the article becomes random letters. I say keep and expand. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The author knew his typos, and notice the string of g's? Potentially, if someone intoxicated passed out on his keyboard, face down on it, its most likely his or her nose would hit the letter "g".--Witt,ofUNionEntertain me* 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Huff. You know, a lot of us don't care about know what happens in German politics. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

to delete an article because you're ignorant of the subject matter is twatty, but this is currently only a short paragraph, and half of that's padding - jack mort |cunt| talk - 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Burn There's a bigger picture than the artice? What sort of page like that deserves to live? User:Kjhf/sig 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

OK, as there are several votes to keep I have take the liberty of expanding the article, gently and I hope in the proper spirit of kluge Ausscheidung. I hope Rangely and other authors will check it for teh funny and further modify as appropriate. Glückliches Bier!----OEJ 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)